Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

David Crafti writes "Pirate Party Australia has made the move to host the recently leaked ACTA document in order to highlight the lack of government transparency in the negotiation process. We believe that the document is not under copyright, and we are not party to any NDAs, so there should be no restriction on us posting it. We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity."

This is indeed (unfortunately) a serious concern. Although we geeks have a sense of humour about these things, many people out there have not.

It's already the name... Many non-geeks go: "the Pirate Party? If that like the beer-drinker's party? Of the cyclist's-who-always-want-wind-in-their-back party"? And the in-jokes aren't improving the situation either...

You can't win an election with just the geeks, so please maximize your chances by at least pretending to be serious.... or else it will be the MAFIA

A peck is a measure of volume associated with dry goods. It is rarely, if ever, used to measure liquids. It is equal to 16 dry pints, which is about 0.311 cubic foot. Note the word dry. A dry pint is not the same as a liquid pint. Four pecks equal a bushel.

Now, I'm not sure how many papers (are these US letter, A4, what?) fit into either a pint (are they flat or folded, have they been shredded, if so how finely, what?) or a bushel, but there's a starting point for your calculations.

They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators (at least in the US, and I assume other countries too) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business. If they desire to declassify this information, then doing it in a way that's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public.

I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.

I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

As I recall, SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean legislators have immunity from prosecution for legislative acts; that they don't abuse that right is a sign that they are (so

To address the grandparent's comment, remember that immunity from prosecution doesn't mean immunity from political repercussions. It will, for example, be likely to significantly reduce the chance that you will find yourself on any of the influential congressional committees, where the power really lives. It may also result in the party deciding not to back you at the next election (less common in the US, I believe, but in the UK it's not unheard of for the party to decide to run a candidate other than th

It may also result in the party deciding not to back you at the next election (less common in the US, I believe, but in the UK it's not unheard of for the party to decide to run a candidate other than the sitting member).

The national party threatening to revoke support during the election is one of the primary ways to keep party members in-line. And, sitting members have been known to lose their primary elections. John McCain is currently a sitting member of the Senate having a remarkably tough time getti

If the information was classified, it is a felony under US Federal law to disclose that information to a non-privileged person. That would be why you do not see any Congressman from disclosing stuff for political profit.

In this case, I doubt that the text of the treaty is under any such classification in the US. In addition several rulings have made it clear that no enforceable law can be kept secrete. A treaty may or may not qualify under those grounds though. Again this would only apply to the United

I don't really think that any parliamentary immunity will be necessary in connection with spreading this document, but as a Member of the European Parliament I can confirm that I have it, in case it turns out to be useful.

/Christian Engström
Member of the European Parliament
Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party), Sweden

We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity.

We will post this to show what you guys are up to.
If you try to get it taken down, it shows everything in the documentis true and real.

We will post this to show what you guys are up to.
If you try to get it taken down, it shows everything in the documentis true and real.

That, my friends, is called a checkmate in my book.

Well, your book is wrong. Suppose the Pirate Party posts a paper positing that parliament pokes preteens and are thus purportedly pedophiles? Trying to take down a document says nothing about its veracity.

I guess one of the reasons for hosting the ACTA is to see how the government responds to it. If they demand it to be taken down on the basis of copyright infringement or breach of NDA terms, then it's quite clear there's something fishy going on (that hasn't been discovered yet). If the government claims that the document is libelous ("we never wanted those things that are written in the document and have our name next to it"), then they're in denial -- or perhaps the document is faked. This would become clear after the ACTA documents are publicized by those that take part of the negotiations (not a leak but a "proper" publication).

If the government ignores the whole deal, then they either don't care or don't see anything wrong with it.

Well, your book is wrong. Suppose the Pirate Party posts a paper positing that parliament pokes preteens and are thus purportedly pedophiles? Trying to take down a document says nothing about its veracity.

But the process would: if a court order was obtained on the grounds that it was false, defamatory, etc, then the government has stated it's false. If however they claim it's an official secret, privileged information, etc, that confirms the substance.

Australia does have courts and laws, the government can't just send the Gestapo around. They need to have some legal justification for their actions.

OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies. If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.

You missed the part where the ACTA may have been copyright protected. If, for example, the Australian government claimed that the PPA have violated the government's copyright in the document, then that's a tacit admission that the government own the copyright in said document. In your example, you are the only one who owns copyright in the fire / puppies document, so only you would have the pri

The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN. None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service. A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before? And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters! These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain! But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.

(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.....(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph....(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.

So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.

A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length. The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again. I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.

At least you didn't dash my cynicism totally, there is a way out! And it highlights all the MORE reasons that ACTA as law that will impoverish generations to come must be stopped before everyone signs on to it and are then obligated to each other to uphold the stupidity!

Sure, if the population of a country wants to set puppies on fire they can too.

The thing is, countries sign this conventions because they get something in return from others. If $country wants his copyrighted works to be protected abroad, it has to protect the others' works for the full span of author's life plus 50 years, even if their local copyright laws aren't that restrictive.

Part (7) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date (for US 1987) So there's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.

Part (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.

Is interesting as well.

What's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention, such as the life of the author clause, were in direct contradiction with US law.

As I have pointed out many times, any nation can, at any time, withdraw from a treaty they are a part of.

If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws, then withdraw from the treaty. A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well. (Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does. In most nations when a treaty is signed, it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws cover

A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?

I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily stretching back that far. I would go 30 years, but that's my opinion. Highway to Hell, Who's Next & IV would all be free of copyright restrictions and I can wait a few more years until Appetite for Destruction is loose.

And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters

Fan fiction based in the universes of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Porter and the like is great, but obviously the owners of the franchises are not going to go hunting down their own fanbase (leave that to the MAFIAA

Here's where a public domain benefits everyone: derivative works have their own copyright. They also have the legal right - not something that can be pulled out from under them on the whim of an "owner" - to make their own profit. I am absolutely convinced that the total new profits from public domain material would dwarf the profits pulled in by a few in Hollywood right now. The problem Hollywood has with it is that they wouldn't own every single penny. And as Citizens with public domain our culture: w

> I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily> stretching back that far.

The point is to give authors a financial incentive to create works, not to make sure that they are able to extract every conceivable nickle of revenue from every work. Twenty years is quite long enough to make an author glad he wrote the thing.

I'm always of the opinion that making copyright "use it or lose it" would work best for encouraging the creation of creative works (if making a sequel or such counts as using the IP, the original work will sooner or later run out of sales potential and if they want to keep the IP they've gotta make another work with it) as well as preservation of older works.

Use it or lose it is an idea that deserves exploration. As long as token measures like "re-issuing a limited edition" and parlor tricks like that didn't count as "using" it I'm actually open to the idea. If you make Terminator 17 and all of them along the way have made enough profit that you'll be making a Terminator 18... It would still accomplish the goal of releasing the majority of works into a public domain where everyone would have a fair deal and shot at the tapestry of culture. What I'm looking

People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing. Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney. You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.

Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things, such as becoming generic....

People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing. Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney

Trademark laws are also broken. In a sane world, Disney would be the trademark, and you would know to buy "Disney's mickey mouse movies". If something is used by the intellectual property itself (such as a name or title), it shouldn't be possible to trademark it.

Trademarks are there to protect buyers from fraud and deception. That they are used by seller's nowadays to lock in their products is plain disgusting.

Interactive media, people can get their Blender Alien models in good shape and with the Free engines the newest "sanctioned" Aliens game would actually have to be really awesome to keep up with the competition. Competition is what content holders are scared of, they don't like the idea that a modern Terminator could be made - you know just in case they happened to maybe cash in on it a bit more in the next eighty (give some decades too) years of government monopoly they already have. Or they could do what they do right now which is ignore all these works while saying: "not yours, fuck off." Gaming wise would stand to see the biggest explosion and you can be sure as shit that is exactly what terrifies content oligarchies of today.

Do you think that in 3000AD I should not be able to say "Aliens!" because whether its a millennium from now or eighty more years I'm still equally dead. Copyright isn't about corporate welfare forever into the future, it's about giving incentive to create. The deal is that in exchange for your limited monopoly after that period it becomes public domain. It has been distorted so far out of line that the public domain has no real meaning anymore - without doing a benefit analysis anywhere along the way other than "more copyright is good!" I think that more culture outweighs more copyright - that's how we make other people more like us. They made their profit with their limited monopoly now they want to renege on the other side of the deal? That's theft. Funny content industry is doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

I disagree. Not that there shouldn't be any copyright but that I disagree that the only voices that are heard are copyright maximalists and their voice is taken as gospel by government. It would take a fool to think that anyone is looking out for their best interests. What I am advocating is going with the spirit of the original deal not subvert it away through back-room deals until it doesn't have any meaning anymore. Are we a culture of jackals seeking to maximize everything for ourself? Or a people

The Pirate Party is platforming on reducing excessive copyright terms. A quick Google search: shows [google.ca] depending on the country of operation values such as 5 and 10 years. I think those are too low, I think a minimum should be 14 years as that was good enough when distribution was primitive and I think with negotiation the magic number should fall between 15-20 years. The Pirate Party is not against copyrights, they are against excessive copyrights.

I think a minimum should be 14 years as that was good enough when distribution was primitive

At a time when distribution and marketing was done at a far slower pace. But personally I don't really care much about the length of time that someone is able to exclusively profit from a single piece of art. It is a minor piece of the puzzle.

I am more interested in other aspects of copyright, such as how works can be used or distributed without profiting, or what can be created without falling derivative works, or the right of authors to be recognized as creators regardless of the status of the distributio

Though I certainly think that the ACTA treaty does not qualify, can you not imagine any instances where it might be necessary for a government to debate something in secret?

Are there issues where the public at large should trust their elected officials to make the decisions which best suit the needs of a populace as a whole? Are there perhaps situations where the populace as a whole knowing might lead to worse decisions being made? I'm honestly not sure as to the answer to these questions, but I do think th

I don't think the argument is against governments being able to privately discuss and debate legalities without public scrutiny. The argument is that once the government has had enough time to develop an argument to present to the public, why should that argument remain secret? How will that benefit their constituents?

Are there issues where the public at large should trust their elected officials to make the decisions which best suit the needs of a populace as a whole? Are there perhaps situations where the populace as a whole knowing might lead to worse decisions being made?

In a perfect system, where politicians have only the best interest of the country at heart I'd agree with you.

We don't get perfection, unfortunately.

The handful of areas where better decisions might be reached by keeping things secret from the public are dwarfed by the massive number of areas where worse decisions will ultimately be reached by keeping things secret. Without knowing what's being discussed, we can't know which category it falls into.

However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...

I think I speak for the people when I say fuck decorumif it conflicts with public debate. It is The People who will be suffering the effects of these bad to-be-laws for the foreseeable future if they should be passed, and therefore it is the people who must be able to debate the issues. That which flourishes in the dark and cannot withstand the light of public scrutiny has no place in the institutions of men.

Please, if you're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA, the Australian internet filter, ridiculous software patents and Big Media's stranglehold on copyright laws then join the Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au]!

They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it's now FREE TO JOIN! Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.

The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing. It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system. I'd support an organization that was more moderate on these issues. The Pirate Party is anything but moderate. Count me as one vote against the the Pirate Party's ridiculous "system".

No. We believe that the original goals of intellectual property protections, which are to promote creativity and invention, are reasonable. We don't believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.

Do you think that commercial copyright infringement or patent infringement is ok?

No. Our position is that companies should pay for the use of copyrighted works and patented designs.

And that's why their position is wrong. Under their rules, any copyrighted material be entirely legal for filesharing. Once everything is legal and free on the internet, good luck selling anything.

Look at the plethora of bottled water manufacturers. How the hell do they make any money when it's legal and free to fill up a bottle from any tap?
PROTIP: it's called adding value, business innovation, and marketing.

Let's be honest here. The Pirate Party believes non-commercial filesharing for a song that came out 5 minutes ago should be 100% legal.

IMHO it should be. I still buy concert tickets, merchandise, DVDs, CDs etc. of artists I like. Why should the law be used to prop up an obsolete business model? Let's be honest here: filesharing is hurting record labels much more than it's hurting real artists. Just ask them [flickr.com].

And then those companies that use that copyrighted material immediately have their work on the internet for free.

It is anyway.

For example, if a movie wants to use someone's song in the soundtrack, they have to pay for it. Unfortunately, the movie itself is available for free on the internet (by the Pirate Party's rules). So, the movie-creators don't make any money. So, they can't afford to pay the musician for his music.

that world governments can't seem to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, or end the diamond trade related genocides in Africa, but let big business whine about "potentially lost profits" and it's "World Leaders To The Rescue" Da.. Da.. DAAAA! Fucking disgusting. Let's hope ACTA turns out better for the little guy than the US's InuranceCompanyCareReformBill.

Also, several international NGOs have reviewed the document and attested that it seems to be the real thing, given correspondence to previously leaked chapters, the style of writing the stakeholders and other information in the document.

Seeing as those involved with ACTA don't exactly have too much credibility in the eye of the public, how are they to "prove" the document has been doctored without releasing their original copy? Even better is the fact that those involved with ACTA could simply change it and re-release it themselves, claiming that this new "people-friendly" version is the true original. Since there's no effective time stamp as the original document was never released, the only credible source appears to be those that went o

I'm pondering.... The document says it is "confidential" not "classified" so I'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified (and weren't some marked Top Secret) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A. The fun part is I'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library's site and equipment. Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.

1. I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more. This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk?

2. I get a take down notice. I comply.:) And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept. After all, news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that hasn't even been updated for a while. Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into! After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries, or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all, to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch. Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time. This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I can't imagine it actually happening.

I mean, I agree with the principle behind providing it, but if somebody wrote a document then the list of circumstances where something isn't under copyright is pretty small. Which one supposedly applies in this case?

Well, this being Australia, this might under the notion of common law copyright, which is a very different animal than statutory copyright.

The notion that authors have a natural right to control their published works in common law is a matter long settled: they don't. However in some jurisdictions (the United States for example), authors have a right to control the use of their unpublished works. So if Wikileaks gets a hold of J.K. Rowling's next novel and puts it on-line, in the US they are considered to